On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 12:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I would prefer it if the use of semi-unique local scope addresses were
> > restricted to non-connected networks. For any connected network you can
> > assume that the network manager is able go to some registry website and
> > grab a guaranteed unique prefix.
>
> Ideally, yes. But that doesn't solve all the real world problems - see
> the Hain/Templin draft.
Which requirement are you referring to?
I don't see any requirement for (even slightly) ambiguous addresses,
aside from the case where it is, for whatever reason, not possible to
quickly acquire a guaranteed unique limited range address from a central
registry.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
